Increasing biological realism of fisheries stock assessment: towards hierarchical Bayesian methods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Excessively high rates of fishing mortality have led to rapid declines of several commercially important fish stocks. To harvest fish stocks sustainably, fisheries management requires accurate information about population dynamics, but the generation of this information, known as fisheries stock assessment, traditionally relies on conservative and rather narrowly data-driven modelling approaches. To improve the information available for fisheries management, there is a demand to increase the biological realism of stock-assessment practices and to better incorporate the available biological knowledge and theory. Here, we explore the development of fisheries stock-assessment models with an aim to increasing their biological realism, and focus particular attention on the possibilities provided by the hierarchical Bayesian modelling framework and ways to develop this approach as a means of efficiently incorporating different sources of information to construct more biologically realistic stock-assessment models. The main message emerging from our review is that to be able to efficiently improve the biological realism of stock-assessment models, fisheries scientists must go beyond the traditional stock-assessment data and explore the resources available in other fields of biological research, such as ecology, life-history theory and evolutionary biology, in addition to utilizing data available from other stocks of the same or comparable species. The hierarchical Bayesian framework provides a way of formally integrating these sources of knowledge into the stock-assessment protocol and to accumulate information from multiple sources and over time.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.022 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".